Opinion
December 29, 1995
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Namm, J., Corso, J.).
Ordered that the judgments and order are affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was denied due process of law because the indictments alleged the time when most of the crimes charged occurred in approximate terms, such as "on or about" a particular month, is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v Weldon, 191 A.D.2d 662; People v Bass, 179 A.D.2d 568). In any event, the periods of time alleged in the indictments were not so lengthy that it was virtually impossible for the defendant to answer charges and prepare an adequate defense and not so excessive as to be unreasonable under the circumstances (see, People v Watt, 192 A.D.2d 65, affd 84 N.Y.2d 948; People v Lopez, 175 A.D.2d 267; see also, People v Bolden, 194 A.D.2d 834; People v Khatib, 166 A.D.2d 668).
Also unpreserved for appellate review is the defendant's contention that the trial court's instructions regarding his failure to testify denied him a fair trial (see, People v Autry, 75 N.Y.2d 836; People v Odome, 192 A.D.2d 725). In any event, the court's charge, while unnecessarily expansive, was neutral in tone, consistent with the intent of CPL 300.10 (2), not so lengthy as to prejudicially draw the jury's attention to the defendant's failure to testify, and did not imply that the failure was a tactical manuever (see, People v Odome, supra; People v Lattimore, 174 A.D.2d 352).
The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting the prosecution to introduce certain evidence of uncharged crimes engaged in by the defendant on its direct case. That evidence was relevant to establish, among other things, the circumstances under which the charged crimes were allowed to occur and the degree of control that the defendant exercised over his congregants. Under the facts of this case, the prejudicial effect of the evidence of uncharged crimes was outweighed by its probative value (see, People v Hudy, 73 N.Y.2d 40, 55; People v Le Grand, 76 A.D.2d 706).
Also, without merit is the defendant's contention that he was denied his right to be present at all material stages of the trial (see People v Bonaparte, 78 N.Y.2d 26, 30). The defendant failed to meet his burden of coming forward with substantial evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity that official proceedings enjoy (see, People v Williams, 220 A.D.2d 788; People v Rodriguez, 154 A.D.2d 488).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Altman and Friedman, JJ., concur.